Will Democrats Let Us Save Social Security?

[JoeB131]

What all rational, sensible people want is for Social Security to be placed on a sound fiscal footing so that it will be there for decades to come. Again, the Social Security Administration itself has admitted that by 2035--in just 11 years--SS revenue will only cover 75% of SS benefits. ELEVEN YEARS.

Which means they'll have to draw from general funds, or maybe get some of those bonds back that they used when SS was posting surpluses and was used to cover general operations. What we need to do is make the rich pay their fair share, period.

We can make the system solvent for the long term by recognizing that we have overpromised on benefits, by reducing the benefits by about 25%, by imposing a means test for receiving benefits, and by removing the cap on income subject to the SS tax.

Fuck off and die, people will never go for that. But I think Republicans should make that their campaign slogan. "We're cutting your social security, granny!" Please, please, please fucking do it.

These steps would preserve 75% of the current benefit levels, adjusted for inflation, and would make the system solvent for the long term. And notice that none of these reforms involves allowing any SS taxes to go into any kind of private investment accounts.

Good, because that would be stupid for a whole host of reasons.

 

[j-mac]

Just take it all, and give it to Ukraine, and Palestine…right dems?

 

[dudmuck]

Because we want to encourage home ownership, you Marxist loon.

On the other hand, we do not want to encourage credit card debt. It is scarry that people like you are allowed to vote.



I never said that the Rape of Nanking "wasn't so bad." How often are you going to repeat this scurrilous lie? Anyone can go back and read our exchanges on the subject and see that I never said any such thing.

Iris Chang was a mentally ill apologist for Communist China. She suffered from paranoid delusions and eventually killed herself. She believed that the CIA or some other group was trying to recruit her without her realizing it, and that some group was trying to kill her.

And, as I've explained to you before, many scholars, solidly mainstream scholars, have pointed out severe problems with her book on the Nanking Massacre.

So because you're upset that I don't accept Communist China's propaganda line about the Nanking Massacre, you won't read any of the scholarly articles that I've linked on Reagan's economic record. Wow, makes total sense, huh?



Huh? Reagan slashed inflation from 13.5% down to 4.1%! Sheesh, can you read? Check the annual inflation rate for yourself:

Consumer Price Index, 1913- | Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

Historical data from the era of the modern U.S. consumer price index (CPI)

www.minneapolisfed.org

And, no, Republicans have not been trying to "murder" Social Security for many decades. They've been trying to reform it so that it is solvent in the long term and so that retirees have more money.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Which means they'll have to draw from general funds, or maybe get some of those bonds back that they used when SS was posting surpluses and was used to cover general operations. What we need to do is make the rich pay their fair share, period.

Draw from "general funds"? Uh, we're $34 trillion in debt. How's that going to work?

If you would bother to do an ounce of credible research, you would discover that the rich are already paying their fair share, and then some.

&%($%*#@ people will never go for that. But I think Republicans should make that their campaign slogan. "We're cutting your social security, granny!" Please, please, please $&#$% do it.

No, the slogan would be, "We're saving Social Security and making it solvent for decades to come."

Do you know what has happened to a number of state pension funds that were facing similar insolvency and that were not reformed to make them viable? The benefits from those funds had to be cut substantially to avoid default.

At some point, the realities of math have to be faced.

Good, because that would be stupid for a whole host of reasons.

What sad ignorance. I take it you are unaware that most state pension funds for state government employees include the option to have money put into investment accounts, instead of a defined benefit paid only from state government revenue? My state of Virginia has such a program for its state employees, and the program is in superb financial condition.

 

[JoeB131]

Draw from "general funds"? Uh, we're $34 trillion in debt. How's that going to work?

Make the rich pay their fair share. We've been over that.

If you would bother to do an ounce of credible research, you would discover that the rich are already paying their fair share, and then some.

Naw, fair share to me is "Take everything they have and then gut them for transplant organs". That would be paying their fair share.

No, the slogan would be, "We're saving Social Security and making it solvent for decades to come."

Again, make sure you let Granny know she has to work until she's 70 and won't be getting as much money. That'll go over really well.

Do you know what has happened to a number of state pension funds that were facing similar insolvency and that were not reformed to make them viable? The benefits from those funds had to be cut substantially to avoid default.

Because the politicians didn't fund them properly, doesn't make it okay to screw workers who worked all their lives.

What sad ignorance. I take it you are unaware that most state pension funds for state government employees include the option to have money put into investment accounts, instead of a defined benefit paid only from state government revenue? My state of Virginia has such a program for its state employees, and the program is in superb financial condition.

Again, letting Wall Street gamble my retirement is a pretty stupid idea, which is people shot it down when George W. Stupid proposed it. (It didn't help when people saw how fucking incompetent he was at everything else, of course.

 

[Dagosa]

Why would you save a Ponzi scheme, that gives a lower ROI than a basic index fund?

Lies.

 

[Dagosa]

Make the rich pay their fair share. We've been over that.


Naw, fair share to me is "Take everything they have and then gut them for transplant organs". That would be paying their fair share.



Again, make sure you let Granny know she has to work until she's 70 and won't be getting as much money. That'll go over really well.



Because the politicians didn't fund them properly, doesn't make it okay to screw workers who worked all their lives.



Again, letting Wall Street gamble my retirement is a pretty stupid idea, which is people shot it down when George W. Stupid proposed it. (It didn't help when people saw how fucking incompetent he was at everything else, of course.

Good retorts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Every time someone proposes a sane, rational, sensible reform of Social Security (SS) to make the system solvent for decades to come, Democrats demagogue it, lie about it, and scare seniors into believing they will be left to starve. Will Democrats ever stop lying about badly needed SS reforms before the system is insolvent?

According to the Social Security Administration, "by 2035 taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits" (Research: The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program). 2035 is only 11 years away, folks. 11 years. Think about that.

We have overpromised, badly, and we have no foreseeable way to pay for the SS benefits we have promised. Sensible reforms would include the following:

-- Reduce scheduled benefits for people aged 54 and younger by 25%.

-- Lift the restriction on the amount of payroll income subject to the SS tax (i.e., the payroll tax). As of 2024, the SS tax only applies to the first $168,200 of payroll income. Lift that cap and make all payroll income subject to the SS tax.

-- Impose a means test for receiving SS benefits. If your personal retirement income is over $80K per year, you get 30% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $100K per year, you get 10% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $150K per year, you get no SS payment.

In 2005, President George W. Bush actually proposed a sane, rational reform of SS that would have made the system solvent well into the 2060s. His proposal did not touch existing SS recipients, nor did it touch anyone over 55. The SS benefits for current recipients and for people 55 and over would have remained unchanged. But Democrats ignored these facts and lied through their teeth about the proposal.

Bush's proposal would have imposed a reduction of about 25% in SS benefits for people aged 54 and younger, which would have given them many years to plan for the reduction. If you would have received $2,000 per month under the previous benefits schedule, you would get $1,500 under the revised schedule.

Bush's proposal would have also given people aged 54 and under the entirely voluntary option of having part of their SS taxes--not all of their SS taxes, but only part of them--placed in a personal retirement account that they would have owned. The accounts would have been set up by the government and would have consisted of a conservative mix of bond and stock funds. Even during the Great Recession of 2008-2009, conservative bond and stock funds suffered minimal losses and made up those losses within 1-3 years.

Trump needs to go through the Federal Government like he was Javier Milei AND invest 80% of the “Trust Fund” in US Equities

 

[bendog]

Every time someone proposes a sane, rational, sensible reform of Social Security (SS) to make the system solvent for decades to come, Democrats demagogue it, lie about it, and scare seniors into believing they will be left to starve. Will Democrats ever stop lying about badly needed SS reforms before the system is insolvent?

According to the Social Security Administration, "by 2035 taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits" (Research: The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program). 2035 is only 11 years away, folks. 11 years. Think about that.

We have overpromised, badly, and we have no foreseeable way to pay for the SS benefits we have promised. Sensible reforms would include the following:

-- Reduce scheduled benefits for people aged 54 and younger by 25%.

-- Lift the restriction on the amount of payroll income subject to the SS tax (i.e., the payroll tax). As of 2024, the SS tax only applies to the first $168,200 of payroll income. Lift that cap and make all payroll income subject to the SS tax.

-- Impose a means test for receiving SS benefits. If your personal retirement income is over $80K per year, you get 30% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $100K per year, you get 10% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $150K per year, you get no SS payment.

In 2005, President George W. Bush actually proposed a sane, rational reform of SS that would have made the system solvent well into the 2060s. His proposal did not touch existing SS recipients, nor did it touch anyone over 55. The SS benefits for current recipients and for people 55 and over would have remained unchanged. But Democrats ignored these facts and lied through their teeth about the proposal.

Bush's proposal would have imposed a reduction of about 25% in SS benefits for people aged 54 and younger, which would have given them many years to plan for the reduction. If you would have received $2,000 per month under the previous benefits schedule, you would get $1,500 under the revised schedule.

Bush's proposal would have also given people aged 54 and under the entirely voluntary option of having part of their SS taxes--not all of their SS taxes, but only part of them--placed in a personal retirement account that they would have owned. The accounts would have been set up by the government and would have consisted of a conservative mix of bond and stock funds. Even during the Great Recession of 2008-2009, conservative bond and stock funds suffered minimal losses and made up those losses within 1-3 years.

that was such a success it flipped congress .... to the dems

 

[hadit]

Trusting the Republicans to save social security is like trusting Colonel Sanders to save the Chickens.

The funny thing is, you don't even realize that would ensure an endless supply of chickens. The last thing somebody wants is the elimination of their cash cow.

 

[Oddball]

Lies.

100% truth.

 

[Oddball]

Trusting the Republicans to save social security is like trusting Colonel Sanders to save the Chickens.

I don't how anyone could demonstrate their 101% complete ignorance of economics, than with a patently fucking stupid statement as that.

 

[Dagosa]

100% truth.

Sure, just like the wizard.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't how anyone could demonstrate their 101% complete ignorance of economics, than with a patently fucking stupid statement as that.

really, what amazes me is that anyone thinks the Republicans know what they are doing in economics.

10 of the last 11 recessions happened when Republicans were in charge. 3 for Ike, 2 for Baby Bush, and one each for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Pappy Bush, and Trump.

 

[JoeB131]

The funny thing is, you don't even realize that would ensure an endless supply of chickens. The last thing somebody wants is the elimination of their cash cow.

The funny thing is that you missed the point of the analogy, Wet Fart.

The Oldsters would be the Chickens, not the customers.

 

[hadit]

The funny thing is that you missed the point of the analogy, Wet Fart.

The Oldsters would be the Chickens, not the customers.

Well, dingleberry, democrats demonize every attempt to fix SS, guaranteeing a painful end. It's what they do.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, dingleberry, democrats demonize every attempt to fix SS, guaranteeing a painful end. It's what they do.

You guys have been saying shit like that since FDR proposed it, Wet Fart. No one takes you seriously enough to let you guy allow wall street to loot our pensions.

 

[hadit]

You guys have been saying shit like that since FDR proposed it, Wet Fart. No one takes you seriously enough to let you guy allow wall street to loot our pensions.

That wall is getting closer, despite your denials, dingleberry.

 

[JoeB131]

That wall is getting closer, despite your denials, dingleberry.

Yes, you've been saying that for years... no one believes you anymore, Wet Fart.

Tax the rich. That's 's how you make up the difference.

 

[Oddball]

really, what amazes me is that anyone thinks the Republicans know what they are doing in economics.

10 of the last 11 recessions happened when Republicans were in charge. 3 for Ike, 2 for Baby Bush, and one each for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Pappy Bush, and Trump.

First of all, I'm not a republican.

Secondly, It would be in the greatest of best interests for Colonel Sanders to be in charge of the chickens that he made millions off of.

What you know about economics could fit on one side of a matchbook.....Just STFU and prevent embarrassing yourself further.